Quote:
Originally Posted by FixTheMess
Based on past practice, Id say this vote will be a yes without any problems. PSA threw its fellow wholly-owned under the bus years ago, and this will be no different. Don't get me wrong, I am hoping PSA can turn over a new leaf, but at this point, all I can do is speculate on what I've already seen. I hope they prove me wrong.
Please stop posting negativity like this. When you do that and it's read by a truely undecided and unformed voter, subconsciously he thinks "this is past practice after all and seems to have worked in the past I guess". Youre actually unintentionally breeding yes votes. Use this site to inform people of what this actually means. For example psa guys, this preferential hiring agreement is actaully worse than the one we have now. They already take 4 of our guys per month, only in this agreement, they can pay freeze you if you forget to apply, or if you fail your interview. And of course, with this agreement psa can hold you for staffing purposes. They have done it before in 2008. They held those guys indefinitely.